Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

Last updated
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 4, 2023
Decided December 5, 2023
Full case nameAcheson Hotels, LLC v. Deborah Laufer
Docket no. 22-429
Citations601 U.S. 1 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorLaufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC,50F.4th259(1st Cir.2022).
Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC(D. Me.2021).
Questions presented
Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" have Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation's failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation?
Holding
The case is vacated as moot.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett  · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
MajorityBarrett, joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceThomas (in judgment)
ConcurrenceJackson (in judgment)
Laws applied
ADA of 1990, Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Munsingwear vacatur

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, 601 U.S. 1 (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding standing to sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act. [1]

Contents

Background

In 1990, the United States Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a piece of civil rights legislation intended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. It prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation". [2] The Act goes on to include hotels as one such "public accommodation". The Code of Federal Regulations further states that hotels must identify all accessibility features present in the hotel as to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to decide for themselves whether a given hotel meets their particular needs. [3]

Deborah Laufer is a Florida resident who uses a wheelchair, and is classified as disabled by the ADA. Laufer describes herself as an ADA "tester"; she browses the internet for hotels which she believes do not provide a sufficient description of ADA compliance. When Laufer finds such a hotel, she sues, seeking an injunction and attorney's fees. Since 2018, she has sued over 600 hotels. [4]

Lower court history

District court

In 2020, Laufer filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maine against Acheson Hotels, LLC, which operates hotels in southeastern Maine. Laufer stated that she visited reservation websites for two hotels operated by Acheson to find that they failed to provide sufficient information regarding ADA-accessibility at the hotels. Acheson moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, since Laufer had no intention of staying at their hotels. Owing to a lack of injury, the district court dismissed the suit. [4]

Court of appeals

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed. It held that it was bound by Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman , where a tester sued a landlord for providing false information about the availability of housing because of the tester's race, even though the tester did not intend to rent an apartment. The Court in Havens Realty held that the tester had standing to sue under the Fair Housing Act's prohibition on "discriminatory representations" regarding housing availability. The Circuit Court rejected Acheson's attempts to distinguish its case from Havens Realty, and argued that while stigmatic injury alone does not give rise to Article III standing, "Laufer's feelings of frustration, humiliation, and second-class citizenry are indeed 'downstream consequences' and 'adverse effects' of the informational injury she experienced". [4]

Supreme Court

On November 4, 2022, Acheson petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its case. On March 27, 2023, the court granted certiorari . [5]

In its merits brief, Acheson Hotels argued that Laufer's claim was moot because it had since updated its reservation website to include accessibility information, and that Laufer thus had access to that information. On July 24, Laufer requested the Court dismiss her case as moot. On August 10, the Court declined to dismiss the case; rather, it suggested the question of mootness would be subject to further consideration at oral argument, in addition to the other question presented. Oral arguments were heard on October 4, 2023. The case was argued, on behalf of Acheson Hotels, by Adam Unikowsky and, for Laufer, by Kelsi Corkran. The case was also argued on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, by Erica Ross, assistant to the Solicitor General.

On December 5, 2023, the Court released its opinion, dismissing the case as moot. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority, applying Munsingwear vacatur to dismiss the case, saying "[Laufer] voluntarily dismissed her pending ADA cases after a lower court sanctioned her lawyer. She represented to this Court that she will not file any others. Laufer’s case against Acheson is moot, and we dismiss it on that ground. We emphasize, however, that we might exercise our discretion differently in a future case." [6] Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the judgment, saying that he would have answered the merits of the case by concluding that Laufer lacked standing. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred in the judgment, agreeing with the majority that the case should be declared moot, but objecting to the use of Munsingwear vacatur. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

A vacated judgment legally voids a previous legal judgment. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions. Rules of procedure may allow vacatur either at the request of a party or sua sponte.

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the law regarding standing to sue and mootness.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), is a 5–4 U.S. Supreme Court case in which Massachusetts, along with eleven other states and several cities of the United States, represented by James Milkey, brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented by Gregory G. Garre to force the federal agency to regulate the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) that pollute the environment and contribute to climate change.

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

al-Marri v. Spagone, 555 U.S. 1220 (2009), was a legal case in which the United States Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely for suspected wrongdoing without being charged with a crime and tried before a jury. The case was dismissed as moot on March 6, 2009, by the application of the Acting Solicitor General to transfer petitioner from military custody to the custody of the Attorney General.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vanessa Ruiz</span> Puerto Rico-born American judge (born 1950)

Vanessa Ruiz is a senior associate judge of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Parker v. Ellis, 362 U.S. 574 (1960), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court granted certiorari to review dismissal of petitioner's application for a habeas corpus review. The petitioner claimed that his conviction in a state court had violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. However, the petitioner was released from incarceration before his case could be heard.

Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the determination of childhood Social Security Disability benefits. In the decision, the Supreme Court ruled that substantial parts of the Supplemental Security Income program's regulation on determining disability for children were inconsistent with the Social Security Act, particularly the statutory standard of "comparable severity". The suit highlighted what some felt was the need for a step in the evaluation of childhood disability claims that would be akin to the functional evaluation considered in many adult claims. It resulted in the addition of a consideration of functioning, and not merely medical severity, in children's SSI claims. The decision was rendered on February 20, 1990.

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the protection of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), passed by the U.S. Congress, extends to persons held in a state prison and protects prison inmates from discrimination on the basis of disability by prison personnel. Specifically, the court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213112165., is a proper use of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, making it applicable to prison system officials.

Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving copyright law. The Court held that failure to register a copyright under Section 411 (a) of the United States Copyright Act does not limit a Federal Court's jurisdiction over claims of infringement regarding unregistered works.

<i>Cardona v. Shinseki</i>

Cardona v. Shinseki was an appeal brought in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) of a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals upholding the denial of service-connected disability benefits for the dependent wife of a female veteran. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs denied the disability benefits based on the definition of "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex" under federal statute. On March 11, 2014, the CAVC dismissed the case as moot after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs advised the Court that he would neither defend nor enforce the federal statute. Cardona subsequently received full payment of her spousal benefits, retroactive to her date of application.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), abbreviated NYSRPA v. NYC and also known as NYSRPA I to distinguish it from the subsequent case, was a case addressing whether the gun ownership laws of New York City, which restrict the transport of a licensed firearm out of one's home, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, and the right to travel. It was the first major gun-related case that the Supreme Court had accepted for review in nearly ten years, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, New York City and New York state amended its laws to allay the challenged provision. In a per curiam decision in April 2020, the Supreme Court determined that the case was moot, vacating and remanding the case to lower courts to determine "whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule".

<i>Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary</i> United States Supreme Court Case

Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary (2020), No. 19-1328, was a court decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case weighs whether a committee of the House of Representatives can assert the House's "sole power of impeachment" to subpoena materials gathered as part of a federal grand jury investigation which are ordinarily secret. Due to changes in the government by the time of the 2020 election, many of the aspects leading to the case have become unnecessary, and the Supreme Court ruled the case moot in orders released in July 2021.

Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson, 550 U.S. 511 (2007) is a United States Supreme court case in which the court held that it did not have jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 to review a wrongful termination suit brought against United States Senator Mark Dayton, where the lower courts did not rule on the constitutionality of the Act. This case was the first Speech or Debate Clause case the Supreme Court took up since 1979.

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Clean Water Act.

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an organization may sue in its own right if it has been directly injured, for example through a "drain on the organization's resources", and that so-called "testers", individuals who sought to determine if a company was in violation of the law, may have standing in their own right.

Kenneth William Mayle is known for multiple legal challenges. He is also the father of a Guinea Hog named Chief Wiggum. He was the founder of the Satanic Temple Illinois chapter.

References

  1. Liptak, Adam (March 27, 2023). "Supreme Court to Hear Dispute Between Maine Hotel and Disability Activist". The New York Times . Archived from the original on October 4, 2023. Retrieved June 14, 2023.
  2. 42 U.S.C.   § 12182
  3. 28 CFR § 36.302(e)(1)(ii)
  4. 1 2 3 "Brief of Petitioner" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States . June 5, 2023. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 4, 2023. Retrieved June 14, 2023.
  5. "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States . November 4, 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 17, 2023. Retrieved June 14, 2023.
  6. 1 2 Wheeler, Lydia (December 5, 2023). "Supreme Court Tosses Fight Over Disability 'Tester' Suit". Bloomberg Law . Archived from the original on December 31, 2023. Retrieved December 5, 2023.